This document provides guidance on writing self-evaluation documents for academic program reviews. It recommends that self-evaluations clearly identify strengths that will be maintained or enhanced, as well as frank assessments of weaknesses and plans for improvement. Reviewers should be provided with context about the program, evidence to support judgments of quality, and a well-structured document that is easy to read. By thinking like reviewers and focusing on strengths, weaknesses, evidence and continuous improvement, self-evaluations can set a positive tone and agenda for the review.

1. Writing
self-evaluation documents
June 2008

2. Aim
• Readers of the report should be left with a
clear impression of the views the self-
evaluation group has of itself: its strengths
and how these will be maintained or
enhanced; and a frank appraisal of its
weaknesses, how it is intended to
eradicate them, or if this is not possible,
what improvements it intends to make

3. Questions
• What do you do?
• Why do you do it?
• How well do you do it?
• How do you know how well you do it?

4. Think about your audience
• Who is going to read your document?
• What knowledge do they have
– of the subject area?
– of the Scottish system?
• What power do they have?

5. Who should be involved?
Course team, students, others in UHI, externals…
Issues to consider
• Ownership
• Responsibilities
• Timing
• Consistency
• Preparing for the review / event

6. Managing perceptions
• The self-evaluation document can set the
tone for the review; it also sets the initial
area for review
• What impression do you want to make?
• (But it’s only part of the process!)

7. Strengths and weaknesses
• Identify weaknesses honestly (but not in a
destructive way!)
• Don’t forget to identify strengths too
• Tone is important – think about language
and structure
• Remember that reviewers will use your
document as their starting point

8. Evidence and description
• Self-evaluation should be both evaluative
and descriptive. A self-evaluation will
need to contain sufficient description to
provide the intended audience with
context and understanding. ‘Persuasive’
self-evaluations may need to contain more
description as external readers will lack
the insider knowledge of the self-
evaluation group.

9. Making judgements
• Self-evaluation involves judgement: that something
is good, might be improved, should be changed etc.
Judgements can only be made on the basis of
evidence (i.e., information related to criteria). It is a
common failing to leave the judgement implicit, to
provide a description of activity that is intended self-
evidently to point to a particular judgement. Such
an approach assumes shared criteria and values
with external readers that may not be there. Self-
evaluations should contain judgements and reasons
for them.

10. Thinking like a reviewer
• ‘there is an identified need for staff
development which is more subject based’
• ‘teaching and learning is also being
reassessed’
• ‘student support is inadequate’

11. Thinking like a reviewer
• ‘there is a plan to use thin client technology
in a few years’
• ‘learning resources are considered in the
annual course reports’
.

12. Evidence
• From the beginning, think about how
you’re going to organise your evidence
• Use referencing and document lists
• Direct reviewers to the most appropriate
source of evidence

13. Be kind to your reader!
• Your document should be well structured
and easy to read
• Think about
– Spacing
– Paragraph length and structure
– Order and numbering
• Try to keep your reader’s interest

14. Consider
• language
• abbreviations
• length
• clarity
• sense
• purpose
• punctuation
• tools
• style
• lists
• diagrams
• redrafting
• checking
presentation and content are both important

15. Benefits of an evaluative document
• may influence the amount of time the team
spends in the institution
• reviewers arrive at the institution with a clear
view understanding of the provision
• reviewers are aware of the environment in which
the subject is operating
• may reduce the amount of additional
documentation requested by the team
• enables the establishment of a clear agenda for
the review